N. H. BHATT, S. H. SHETH, J.

( 1 ) MR. Mehta has argued that the complaint lodged by this witness Ex. 49 is not admissible in evidence because it is hit by sec. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Mr. Mehta information of a cognizable offence was given much earlier to the police. He has invited our attention in that behalf to the deposition of Batuksing Bavansing Police Station Officer in charge of Mehsana Taluka Police Station at the relevant time. He is P. W. 13 Ex. 29. His evidence discloses that he had received a telephonic message from Police Head Constable Prakash at about 1-25 p. m. informing him that a quarrel had taken place between Rabaris and the watchmen and that the Rabaris had run away after having assaulted the watchmen and that therefore the needful should be done. He did not record that message in the telephone register maintained by the Police Station. Therefore we really do not have before us the exact message which was received on telephone from Head Constable Prakash who was at Sobhasan. As soon as he received the telephonic message from Head Constable Prakash he did not record it in the telephone register of the Police Station but issued an orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document